> These conspiracy theories are getting ever more elaborate. The liability regime thing was not from some big speech. It was from a Senate subcommittee hearing which did not attract all that much attention:
It likely didn't attract much attention, because these sorts of hearings are largely performative. They're not actually a part of the legislative process per se. Again, the only relevant thing is what legislation is actually being proposed and how it is specifically structured.
> The "actual AI developments" are that AI has been advancing faster than most everyone predicted, so expect that to continue: https://benjamintodd.substack.com/p/almost-every-ai-forecast...
Right, but the discussion here applies to what's going on in real life, not speculative sci-fi fantasies that are largely disconnected from the reality of how either AI tech or economies actually work.
> I don't think the US will become a police state. I think the takeover is kind of inevitable and I prefer it to happen sooner, on good terms, when the technology is weaker, rather than later, on ad-hoc terms, when the technology is stronger.
Considering that the kind of "takeover" you're discussing would likely be in severe conflict with the US constitution, how do you reconcile believing that it's "inevitable" while holding that the US would still not become a police state?
> I prefer it to happen sooner, on good terms, when the technology is weaker, rather than later, on ad-hoc terms, when the technology is stronger
A priori political intervention based on unconstrained speculation about what might happen in the future. What could possibly go wrong?
Perhaps you should compare your speculative failure modalities of AI against the demonstrated failure modalities of politics, and re-evaluate where the greatest potential for danger lies.
It likely didn't attract much attention, because these sorts of hearings are largely performative. They're not actually a part of the legislative process per se. Again, the only relevant thing is what legislation is actually being proposed and how it is specifically structured.
> The "actual AI developments" are that AI has been advancing faster than most everyone predicted, so expect that to continue: https://benjamintodd.substack.com/p/almost-every-ai-forecast...
Right, but the discussion here applies to what's going on in real life, not speculative sci-fi fantasies that are largely disconnected from the reality of how either AI tech or economies actually work.
> I don't think the US will become a police state. I think the takeover is kind of inevitable and I prefer it to happen sooner, on good terms, when the technology is weaker, rather than later, on ad-hoc terms, when the technology is stronger.
Considering that the kind of "takeover" you're discussing would likely be in severe conflict with the US constitution, how do you reconcile believing that it's "inevitable" while holding that the US would still not become a police state?
> I prefer it to happen sooner, on good terms, when the technology is weaker, rather than later, on ad-hoc terms, when the technology is stronger
A priori political intervention based on unconstrained speculation about what might happen in the future. What could possibly go wrong?
Perhaps you should compare your speculative failure modalities of AI against the demonstrated failure modalities of politics, and re-evaluate where the greatest potential for danger lies.